Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ROBERT B. SLOAN
Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798
the traditional theological views of the book are nonetheless very real.
One does not have to look very long or very hard at the sometimes
casually expressed theological categories and/or allusions in James to
realize that this book is certainly worthy of a rightful place within the
canon of sacred books which comprise and reflect the earliest (and
normative) Christian and apostolic theology.
Jesus in the epistles of the NT, it is now thought entirely possible that
the sayings of Jesus were so integral a part of early Christian catechism
and instruction (perhaps even a part of evangelistic instruction) that
they may have been presumed as familiar to many in the various
churches.9 How far that assumption may be pressed, however, is not
certain. What is clear, at any rate, is that the epistles of the NT are not
entirely without reference to the sayings of Jesus and their presumed
authoritative status. For example, the use of the sayings of Jesus in the
literature of the Pauline churches has been frequently observed (see 1
Cor 7:10, 9:14, 10:33 [par. Mark 10:44], 11:24, 25; 1 Thes 4:15; cf. also
Col 3:16; Gal 6:2; Eph 4:17). More specifically, the impact of the
traditions contained in the Sermon on the Mount upon Rom 12:1-15:7
has been often noted.10 Outside the Pauline traditions we may note that
Mark 13 and the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus reflected therein have
certainly influenced the Revelation,11 and Acts 20:35 (reporting words
of Paul) explicitly cites an otherwise unknown saying of the Lord.
Finally, covering a wide range of NT traditions, we may observe, as
suggested by many,12 that the "stone" passage of Rom 9:32, 33; Eph
2:19-22, and 1 Pet 2:4-10 are based upon the exegetical uses of Isa
8:14, 28:16 and Ps 118:22 as established already by Jesus and reflected
in the synoptic traditions (Matt 21:33-46; par. Mark 12:1-12; Luke
20:9-19).
James is by no means an exception to this common early Christian
practice of employing the sayings of Jesus. It is to be noted, of course,
that James nowhere explicitly cites a saying of Jesus as such, but the
words of Jesus are so very clearly woven into the very structure of
James' instruction that we may conclude that the authoritative use and
status of the dominical sayings for the author of James and his readers
was an unquestioned assumption. James' use of what we call the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) is so well known as scarcely to need
9
G. B. Caird, The Apostolic Age (London: Duckworth, 1965) 73-82; also, C. F. D.
Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 3rd rev. and rewritten ed. (San Fransicso:
Harper and Row, 1982) 177-99.
10
So F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Tyn NT.; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1963) 228; Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Paternoster, 1977) 96;
cf. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge
1977) 398f.
11
G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
1974) 129ff.
12
R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975) 202-4. The "stone" passages have also received excellent treatment in
K. Snodgrass, "1 Peter 1l.1-10: Its Formation and Literary Affinities," NTS 24 (1977)
97-106; The Parable of the Wicked Tenants [WUNT 27; Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1983].
Sloan: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JAMES 11
love the other, or he will hold to one is hostility towards God? Therefore
and despise the other. You cannot whoever wishes to be a friend of the
serve God and Mammon. world makes himself an enemy of
God./Draw near to God and He will
draw near to you. Cleanse your hands,
you sinners; and purify your hearts,
you double-minded.
6:34: Therefore do not be anxious 4:13, 14: Come now, you who say,
for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care "Today or tomorrow, we shall go to
for itself. Each day has enough trouble such and such a city, and spend a year
of its own. there and engage in business and make
a profit."/Yet you do not know what
your life will be like tomorrow. You
are just a vapor that appears for a
little while and then vanishes away.
7:1: Do not judge lest you be judged 4:11, 12; 5:9: Do not speak against
yourselves. one another, brethren. He who speaks
against a brother, or judges his brother,
speaks against the law, and judges the
law; but if you judge the law, you are
not a doer of the law but a judge of
it./There is only one Lawgiver and
Judge, the One who is able to save
and destroy; but who are you to judge
your neighbor?/Do not complain,
brethren, against one another, that you
yourselves may not be judged; behold,
the Judge is standing right at the door.
7:7, 8: Ask, and it shall be given to 1:5; 4:3: But if any of you lacks wis-
you; seek, and you shall find; knock, dom, let him ask of God, who gives to
and it shall be opened to you./For all men generously and without re-
everyone who asks receives; and he proach, and it will be given to him./
who seeks finds; and to him who You ask and do not receive, because
knocks it shall be opened. you ask with wrong motives, so that
you may spend it on your pleasures.
7:16,17: You will know them by their 3:10-13,18: From the same mouth
fruits. Grapes are not gathered from come both blessing and cursing. My
thombushes, nor figs from thistles, are brethren, these things ought not to be
they? /Even so every good tree bears this way./Does a fountain send out
good fruit; but the rotten tree bears from the same opening both fresh and
bad fruit. bitter water? /Can a fig tree, my breth-
ren, produce olives, or a vine produce
figs? Neither can salt water produce
fresh./Who among you is wise and
understanding? Let him show by his
Sloan: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JAMES 13
* * *
The point to all that has been presented thus far is relatively
simple: the theology of James is not alien to the theological currents of
primitive Christianity as reflected in the canonical literature. Though
some scholars have treated the book of James as if it were merely a
Jewish document to which a couple of traditional Christian references
to the "Lord Jesus Christ'" (1:1; 2:1) were added so as to give it
Christian acceptability, such handling, we are convinced, does no
justice to the almost unconscious use of traditional Christian materials,
phrases and texts at virtually every literary stratum of the book.
Moreover, the theology of James, while often more implicit than
explicit, given its extremely practical bent, is nonetheless real and is
evidenced in the deep structures of our author's thinking and belief. As
we continue by considering the Christology of James, the implicit but
nonetheless real pattern of Christian confession continues to be evident.
What James has to say about Christ lies for the most part beneath
the surface of the practical exhortations in the book. In attempting to
uncover the Christology of James, therefore, we must look not only at
what James says about Christ, but at what James seems to assume
about Christ in the course of his ethical instructions. The following
represents a brief summary of the Christological statements that can be
made as a reflection of the implicit Christological assumptions under-
lying the explicit paraenesis of the book.
to author. There is little doubt that the teachings of Jesus had a very great
impact upon James. There is more to be said in this regard but it will be
deferred until we consider the explicit Christological title of "Lawgiver"
as discussed below. What may be remarked here, however, is that the
central (and serious) function of teaching for James (3:1) was no doubt
enhanced by the teaching role our author saw modeled in the life of his
Lord, a fact which, again, is reflected in the extensive use of Jesus'
sayings to be found in this short work. But it was not only the content of
Jesus' teaching that seems to have touched our author, since, for the
author of James, teaching was no mere academic enterprise, but a task
of morally compelling urgency fraught with eschatological significance
(3:1). In addition to the re-interpreted legal content to which James fell
heir as a Christian teacher, there was the authority, the prophetic
passion of Jesus that was likewise conveyed with the teachings them-
selves. Literary analysis easily suggests the teachings of Jesus as a
primary source for the exhortations of James. If, however, we inquire
further, as to the source of James' prophetic passion and tone, we are
once again thrown back upon the similar and very reasonable explana-
tion of the historical Jesus as the originator, in this case, of the rather
innovative conflation of rabbinic and prophetic roles in early Christi-
anity17 (see Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28, 29; 14:26-33; Eph 4:11; cf. Acts 11:21;
Eph 2:20, 3:5) and especially James (see below). For Jesus to have been
regarded as both "rabbi" and "prophet" is historically unusual, to say
the least, and provides the most plausible explanation for the--again,
unusual--conflation in James of what appears to be wisdom literature
delivered with prophetic tone. The blunt, often harsh remarks of the
historical Jesus directed to either his religious enemies (Matt 12:34;
15:7, 14; 16:4; 21:31; 22:18; 23:1-36; Luke 16:15; 20:41), or, in some
cases, even bitingly delivered to his own disciples (Matt 8:26; 15:16;
16:8-11, 23; 17:17,20; Luke 9:31) is, in turn, likely reflected in the often
searing tone evidenced by the author of James. Just as the Master
himself could call his disciples "friends" (Luke 12:4) or "little flock"
(Luke 12:32) on the one hand and "unbelieving and perverted" (Luke
9:41), on the other, or could even so sternly rebuke his disciples for
17
See D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean
World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 103-6, where the simplistic notion--which
asserts that the prophetic movement ceased and was followed by the rabbinic--is
certainly qualified, though the notion is itself, as Aune concedes, representive of the
opinion of classical rabbinic tradition. Aune does admit that there is a relative re-
emergence of the prophetic movement in and through early Christianity. Indeed, Aune
argues that the rabbinic claim that the prophetic movement had ceased and was
superseded by them (the rabbis) is itself an attestation of the relative resurgence of the
prophetic movement in Christian circles (and perhaps elsewhere).
16 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
A Wisdom Pneumatology/Christology
In this matter the Christological implications may well seem to be
very remote, but considering the fact that both the categories of
wisdom and Spirit/spirit are Christological in virtually every other
corner of NT theological tradition, it may at least be noted here that the
category of wisdom is certainly not absent from James and--while it
does not seem to imply directly a Christology--it certainly suggests a
pneumatology, which itself may have had Christological undertones
for our author.19 The notion of wisdom is suggested in at least three
contexts (1:5-8; 16-18; 3:13-18). While the term "wisdom" does not
appear in the 1:16-18 passage the verbal and theological clues (where
wisdom is "of God," "from above," "unwavering," and "good") pro-
vided by the other two contexts in which the term is explicitly used
make it clear that here too our author is referring to wisdom.
The connection between Spirit/spirit and wisdom in the OT and
other Jewish materials (Gen 41:38-39; Exod 31:3; Isa 11:2; Wisdom of
Solomon 1:6; 7:7,22) is well established. Moreover, that connection is
certainly not lost in the NT. Indeed, in the Pauline writings we see that
wisdom, which in the OT involves the ability to live life under the will
of God, is not only used in passages which draw out the implications of
the divine Spirit for Christian experience (1 Cor 2:1-16; 12:8; cf. Eph
1:17; 3:5, 10, 16), but is also frequently referred to in the absence of
19
Ibid. 51-54.
18 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
other more explicit references to the Spirit, but in ways that are parallel
to what is elsewhere the work of the Spirit in producing a life that is
pleasing to God (Col 1:9; 3:16; 4:5). The synoptic traditions likewise
reflect the connection between wisdom and Spirit. In Luke 11:13 we
read of the heavenly Father who, even more than an earthly father,
gives good gifts--in this case the Holy Spirit--to His children who ask
Him. It is interesting to note that the Matthean parallel (7:11) does not
refer to the Holy Spirit but simply to “what is good” as that which is
given to those who ask the generous Father. Neither synoptic passage
uses the term “wisdom,” but certainly the obedient life of wisdom is in
view. Furthermore, when read in tandem with the wisdom passages in
James and the established Jewish traditions connecting spirit and
wisdom, these synoptic traditions (Matt 7:11; Luke 11:13) seem much
less dissimilar: i.e., the reference to the Spirit being apt in Luke, and
likely implied in the more J ewishly conceived Matthew. Thus, in
Matthew and James the reference to the Spirit seems implied, in Luke
(like Paul) it is more explicit. In all cases, the life that is pleasing to God
is in view. Whereas Paul (cf. also John) has what is often described as a
wisdom Christology, James has, it would seem, analogous to the
synoptic traditions reflected in Matt 7:11 and Luke 11:13, a wisdom
pneumatology.
To what extent James' wisdom pneumatology reflects also a
wisdom Christology is difficult to demonstrate, but it does not seem a
far remove, given what we have seen already in terms of James'
theocentric understanding and ethical use of the ministry of Jesus as
“God's choosing of the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of
the kingdom" (2:5). If Paul's Spirit theology in Gal 5:22, 23 is in some
way a reminiscence of the historical Jesus, then it is not too far-fetched
to ask whether James' wisdom paraenesis may not likewise reflect a
certain understanding of the historical Jesus and/or his life of wisdom
and obedience to God.20 In this connection it is interesting to note that
the implicit Christology thus far uncovered in James is largely depen-
dent on historical traditions regarding the life of Jesus. It has been
assumed by some that the primary residue of the historical Jesus is
found indirectly in the deposit (to be recovered by the variously
applied criteria of form criticism) of his life left in the communities in
the form of his teachings. While none may doubt that the teachings of
Jesus exerted an enormous influence upon the theology and self-
20
See Davies, Sermon 346-49 and F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 252-61, who suggest the connection for Paul
between the life in the Spirit of Gal 5: 22, 23 and the historical Jesus; note well that Paul's
"fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22, 23) and James' "wisdom from above" (Jas 3:17, 18) are not
at all dissimilar.
Sloan: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JAMES 19
name than a title--has not completely lost contact with its Jewish roots
(however good or "Hellenistic" the Greek of this document may be) as
a reference to "Messiah." Though seldom used publicly by Jesus during
the days of his ministry,23 the title "Christ" and/or "Messiah" was one
of the most popular early Christian confessions about Jesus, finding its
functional roots in the ministry of Jesus, its decisive shaping vis-a-vis
the cross of Jesus, and its supreme vindication in the fact of his
resurrection from the dead. In this latter connection it was connected
with the title "Lord" (cf. Acts 2:33-36; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 1:2f.; 2 Cor 4:5;
Phil 2:6-11; 3:8; Col 2:6; 3:24; 2 Thes 2:1) to form one of the earliest
Christological confessions about Jesus. The background of the term
"Christ" in Jewish messianism as an expression of the predominantly
royal (as opposed to prophetic and priestly) hopes of prophetic/
apocalyptic Judaism quite naturally brought this term into the orbit of
its often closely-associated fellow term "Lord" (and both with "Son,"
cf. Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:20-28, 57; Col 1:13-20; 2:6).
The term "Lord" has been suggested by some to have arisen in the
Hellenistic communities of early Christianity, but its Jewish antecedents
are not to be dismissed lightly. The presence of the term in the several
hymnic fragments incorporated within the NT materials suggests that
the term was part of the very earliest confessions of the Christian faith
and thus may well have its rise and setting within the framework of
Jewish Christianity.24 Whatever its provenance it seems clear that the
term as such is a reference to the kingly status of the resurrected Jesus,
given the early Christian belief that he had acceded to a celestial throne
and was seated (as a ruling and interceding agent)25 at the right hand of
the Most High God. The precipitating cause for the Christian ascription
of Lordship to Jesus seems to have been the belief in His resurrection
and ascension to the right hand of God.26 The use of both of these early
Christian designations with reference to Jesus in the book of James
confirms its rightly perceived status within the mainstream of early
Christianity .
names of God with reference to Christ. The term "glory" has a long
pre-history in Jewish history and theology as a euphemism for Yahweh.
As a word that refers, e.g., to the light that could be seen when God
was present in the tabernacle in the wilderness (Exod 40:34), the
temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:11), or Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly
throne (1:28), the term "glory" itself came to mean the presence of God
and thus was widely used in NT traditions as a reference to the
presence of God in Christ,27 and, as such, was also closely associated
with both wisdom and image of God Christology in the NT.28 In Jas
2:1, where th?j do<chj is commonly translated as an attributive adjec-
tive,29 and thus rendered as "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ," the
reference to "the glory" may more properly be seen as a kind of
substantive in its own right. That is, given the use of "glory" as a
euphemism for God, and the Christian tendency to transfer traditional
names of God to Christ, the passage in question could well be translated
"our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory."30 As to the precise import that is to
be given to "the glory," if thus rendered in this reference to "our Lord
Jesus Christ," there can be some debate. It could be argued that "glory"
here is a straightforward reference to Jesus as the very presence of God
and thus, in light of the presence of God revealed in the ministry of the
Lord who had fellowship with sinners (cf. 2:5), the readers must be
certain not to violate God's Christocentrically-revealed nature and/or
continued presence in their fellowship by expressing attitudes of
personal favoritism and snobbery. In this sense a presumption of
familiarity with, if not an intended allusion to, the historical Jesus may
be justifiably deduced from our author's use of "the glory." At the very
least the reference to Jesus as "the glory" would seem to be a reference
to His exalted status at the right hand of God.
We must note, however, that, even in this latter sense, to confess
His glory is still, for our author, to refrain from a disdain for the poor.
How one gets theologically from the confession of glory to the stated
necessity of solidarity with the poor seems at first psychologically
implausible, but, given the common early Christian association of glory
with suffering (John 12:23-28; 13:31; 1 Pet 4:12-16; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor
27
Cf. Matt 16:27; 19:28; Luke 24:26; John 1:14; 2:11; 11:40; 12:23-41; 13:21-32; 17:5,
22,24; Acts 7:55; 22:11; Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4-6; Eph 1:12, 14, 17; 3:16; Phil
4:19; Col 1:27; 3:4; 2 Thes 2:14; 1 Tim 3:16; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:3; 2:7,9; 1 Pet 1:11, 21; 4:11,13,
14; 5:10; 2 Pet 1:3, 17; Rev 5:12f.; 21:23.
28
Kim, Origin 230f.
29
So NIV, NASB, and Goodspeed. The KJV, RSV, NEB, TEV, and Living Bible
seem to have opted for a compromise translation, "the Lord of glory," though even thus
the adjectival sense of th?j do<chj appears to have predominated.
30
P. J. Townsend, "Christ, Community and Salvation in the Epistle of James," EvQ
53 (1981) 116.
22 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
4:4-18; Heb 2:5-10), certainly not impossible. Thus, the ease of transi-
tion in James from glory to humility may reflect not only James'
familiarity with the profound theological juxtaposition of the cross and
resurrection in early Christianity, but especially the paraenetic import
of that relationship. In this way we see but another instance of what has
been the pattern throughout this early Christian document, viz., explicit
exhortation based upon, and itself in turn implying, a rather traditional,
primitive Christian theology / Christology.
Jewish emphasis upon "the name" of God is well attested in
ancient sources.31 In the NT it is especially the Jewish Christian
materials which reflect very great interest in "the name" as a Christo-
logical designation.32 Just as references to "the name" had earlier
become a way to refer to God for Jewish piety, so also the same phrase
became, it seems, a reference in early Jewish Christianity to Christ
himself. In 2:1, our author exhorts his readers not to pay special
attention to the wealthy, for they are the ones who "blaspheme the fair
name" which was invoked “over” the early Christians. This latter
reference to "the name" which was pronounced "over" believers may
well be a reference to baptism. Whether it was in fact the act of
baptism whereupon "the name" was pronounced over the readers of
James' epistle, it is nonetheless clear that we are confronted here with a
Christological reference, for it was no doubt the name of Jesus which
constituted the distinctive identity--the "call"--of early Christians and
was, in the instances suggested by our author, "blasphemed" by their
wealthy oppressors. Just as in the OT the Lord had "called" out for
Himself a people to be his own chosen people (Deut 28:10), so also
early Christians understood their own self identity in terms of the
"Lord Jesus" by whom and through whom they had been called and to
whom they were to give their allegiance. The reference in 5:14 to a
prayerful anointing "in the name of the Lord" has been discussed
above, but may be mentioned again here as another instance of James'
use of "the name" as an unmistakable Christological reference to Jesus
as the distinctive "Lord" whose "name" may be invoked over the
members of the fellowship.
fellow (2:4, 4:11, 5:9) through the merciless acts of partiality (2:9, 13)
and harsh criticism (4:11,5:9). God through Christ is the great and final
Lawgiver and Judge (2:11, 4:12, 5:9).
Thus far we have argued that "the law" in James is the Torah of
Jesus, i.e., the law of God (the Mosaic Law) as taught by Christ. But
we hinted earlier that this Torah of Jesus was not necessarily exclusively
comprised of sayings traditions from Jesus. The last passage that we
will consider in this connection, 1:18-25, forces us to consider the
possibility that the "life of Jesus" traditions, i.e., the events of His
Christological experience, are also essential to what we are calling the
"Torah of Jesus" in James.36
We have already seen that James is not unfamiliar with the
historical/event traditions regarding Jesus. This fact is again confirmed
when we examine the tradition critical background of the various
references to "the word" in 1:18-23. The reference in 1:18 to "the word
of truth" takes over, as noted earlier, a rather traditional early Christian
expression for the gospel (2 Cor 6:7; Col l:5; Eph 1:13 and 2 Tim 2:15).
We may also recall 1 Pet 1:22-25 where-though the exact expression
"word of truth" is not found-there is a reference-citing Isa 40:6, 7
which is also alluded to in Jas 1:10, 11--to the faithful "word of God,"
which is called both "the truth" and the "imperishable seed" that
produces "rebirth" and is "the word which was preached to you", i.e.,
the gospel. The ad sensum parallel to this Petrine passage in Jas 1:18,
where the faithful Father has "brought us forth by the word of truth,"
seems clear. The "word of truth" in Jas 1:18 is thus almost certainly
something akin to the traditional gospel of early Christianity. Then, in
1:21, the "word of truth" from 1:18 has become "the word implanted
(to>n e@mfuton lo<gon), which is able to save your souls," a notion again
not unlike the reference in 1 Peter to the gospel as the "imperishable
seed" (spora?j . . . a]fqa<rtou, 1:23) which, in yet another Petrine con-
36
Certainly OT Torah is not limited to oracular (divine commandment) materials,
but is also based upon historical/narrative traditions. With similar effect, our expression
"the Torah of Jesus," has the dual meaning suggested by the twin life settings of Jesus
and the church. That is, by "the Torah of Jesus," we are deliberately playing upon the
ambiguity of the English "of" so as to refer both to the teachings derived from Jesus and
the apostolic theological traditions about Jesus, particularly the apostolic reflections upon
not only his words, but his life, especially the significance of the cross and resurrection
events (cf. Eph 2:20; 3:4, 5, 9). In so doing we are, at worst, repeating the ambiguity of
NT expression wherein it is sometimes extremely difficult to determine whether the
author intends to refer to historical sayings of Jesus (Jesus tradition) or to early Christian
reflections (Spirit-inspired apostolic traditions) upon the Christ event (see 1 Cor 7:25;
14:37; Col 2:6-8; 3:16; 1 Thes 4:15; 2 Thes 3:6; 1 Tim 4:1-6). At best, we are perhaps
illustrating the inextricable link between the history of Jesus (including his words) and
the inspired apostolic reflection upon that history. In no case do I suspect that the early
church created sayings of Jesus de novo with utterly no regard for the history of Jesus.
Sloan: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JAMES 27
text, can similary produce "the salvation of your souls" (1:9). It seems
clear then that our author is referring, in these "word" phrases of 1:18-
23, to the rather traditional kerygma of early Christianity, i.e., the
message of the cross and resurrection.
Next, it must be noted that the "word" language of 1:18-23 easily,
indeed, naturally, coalesces into the "law" terminology of 1:25 (and
beyond, i.e., 2:8-13; 4:11, 12; 5:7-11), suggesting thereby the synony-
mous relationship of those two terminological constellations. The fact
that "doers of the word" (poihtai> lo<gou, 1:22) are likened to the man
who "looks intently (o! . . . paraku<yaj) at the perfect law, the law of
liberty" (ei]j no<mon te<leion to>n th?j e]leuqeri<aj), and is thus a "working
doer" (poihth<j e@rgou, 1:25), likewise argues for the synonymous con-
nection for our author between the "word" of 1:18-23 and the "law" of
1:25. Finally, the parallel references in 1:25 and 2:12 to the "law of
liberty" link the various--but equivalent--"word" and "law" references
of 1:18-25 to the several "law" references of 2:8-13; 4:11, 12 and 5:7-11
in such a way that the contextually given expressions not only greatly
overlap, but, in fact, appear virtually synonymous. Thus, in light of the
referential identity of the "word" phrases of 1:18-23 and the "law"
expressions of 1:25 (both of which, then, are to be related to the "law"
passages of 2:8-13; 4:11, 12 and 5:7-11), we may not assume that
references to "law" in James, i.e., what we have called the "Torah of
Jesus," lack any reference to the cross and resurrection, i.e., an "event"
gospel; nor, on the other hand, that the preached "word. . . which is
able to save your souls" lacks didactic demand, i.e., the implications of
the teachings of Jesus.
While our passage (1:18-25) seems, therefore, to begin (1:18-23)
with rather traditional references to the preached word of the gospel
(or an "event" oriented message) and to end (1:24, 25) with certain
didactic references to "law" (a body of teaching material), such a shift
is more apparent than real. While a shift of some sort undoubtedly does
take place between 1:18-21 and 1:22-25, it is not a shift from gospel to
law, nor even from gospel (the saving events) to Christian law (the
teachings of Jesus). For our author "word" and "law" are synonymous
and both suggest the saving acts and words of God through the person
of Jesus Christ. Thus, the shift in our passage relates not to the
authoritative norm (i.e., whether "word" or "law") to which response
must be given, but to the nature of the response itself. That is, whereas
in 1:21 the "implanted word" (or "the word of truth" from 1:18) must
be “received in humility" (e]n p[rau<thti de<casqe), in 1:22 the language of
response becomes more obviously active, more apparently volitional,
for the readers must be “doers of the word” and not merely “self-
deluding hearers.” The self-deluding hearer is like the forgetful man
who has "looked" (kateno<hsen) at himself in a mirror but quickly
28 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
forgets his reflection upon departing. But the effective doer is one who
"looks intently" at "the perfect law, the law of liberty," "abides"
(o[ paramei<naj) by it and thus will receive the eschatological beatitude
of God (maka<rioj . . . e@stai). To what degree the mirror illustration
may be pressed so that "the word" and the man's image and/or the
mirror may be correlated is open to discussion. But what seems clear in
spite of that issue is that "the word" of 1:22, 23--itself an obvious
shortening of "the word of truth" and "the implanted word" of 1:18 and
1:21, respectively--has become "the perfect law, the law of liberty" of
1:25. Thus, our passage does not shift its argument from "word" (or
"gospel") to "law," nor even from "getting in" to "staying in." Rather, it
moves more along the lines of "proclamation" and "legitimation."
Syntactically and contextually the shift in meaning has rather
clearly occurred with 1:22 (Gi<nesqe de>), but, again, it does not cor-
respond to the shift in terms from "word" to "law," for the "word"
complex of phrases is still being used in 1:22, 23 and the "law" complex
does not begin until 1:25 (from which point it dominates the remainder
of James except for two isolated references to "the truth"-terminology
which falls nearer the "word" orbit of concepts (cf. again 1:18)-in 3:14
and 5:19. Thus, the terminological clues for the shift, expressed in terms
of response, from saving mercy (proclaimed) to authentic salvation
(received) are to be found elsewhere. The theological shift is signalled
terminologically with the introduction of the catchwords for "doers"
(poi<htai) and "hearers" (a]kroatai<). It is in fact this very pair of related
terms in Matt 7:24-27 that introduces the decisive criterion in the
conclusion to the Great Sermon traditions in Matthew whereby the
"wise man" is distinguished from the "foolish man" who "hears" the
words of Jesus but does not "do" them, and thus comes to eschatological
ruin. The source of both James' terminology and legitimating37 criterion
seems clear. But if this connection between the "hearing" and "doing"
of Jas 1:22-25 and Matt 7:24-27 is correct, then we must also notice the,
parallel use of the term "word" (1:18, 21-23; Matt 7:24, 26). Thus, it also;
seems clear, once again--from the same source analysis-that what
James means by "word" (1:18, 21-23) cannot be separated, even
temporarily, from the "words" of Jesus.
Thus, we are faced with a complex of terms which suggests a rich
variety of emphases. What James means by "the word of truth," or,
"the word implanted," is certainly, if our earlier tradition analysis is
correct, something very much akin to the apostolic "gospel." But that
37
That the issue in 1:22-25 is '"legitimation" seems clear from such expresssions as
"prove yourselves" (Gi<nesqe) and "delude themselves" (paralogizo<menoi e[autou<j, v.22).
Indeed, "legitimation" could well be a decisive issue throughout the book. Cf. 1:26, 27;
2:14-26; 3:13.
Sloan: THE CHRISTOLOGY OF JAMES 29